Can You Spot the Fakes?: On the Limitations of User Feedback in Online Social Networks

Online social networks (OSNs) are appealing platforms for spammers and fraudsters, who typically use fake or compromised accounts to connect with and defraud real users. To combat such abuse, OSNs allow users to report fraudulent profiles or activity. The OSN can then use reporting data to review and/or limit activity of reported accounts. Previous authors have suggested that an OSN can augment its takedown algorithms by identifying a “trusted set” of users whose reports are weighted more heavily in the disposition of flagged accounts. Such identification would allow the OSN to improve both speed and accuracy of fake account detection and thus reduce the impact of spam on users. In this work we provide the first public, data-driven assessment of whether the above assumption is true: are some users better at reporting than others? Specifically, is reporting skill both measurable, i.e., possible to distinguish from random guessing; and repeatable, i.e., persistent over repeated sampling? Our main contributions are to develop a statistical framework that describes these properties and to apply this framework to data from LinkedIn, the professional social network. Our data includes member reports of fake profiles as well as the more voluminous, albeit weaker, signal of member responses to connection requests. We find that members demonstrating measurable, repeatable skill in identifying fake profiles do exist but are rare: at most 2.4% of those reporting fakes and at most 1.3% of those rejecting connection requests. We conclude that any reliable “trusted set” of members will be too small to have noticeable impact on spam metrics.